45 Years Ago...

Apostle Speaks on Religious Freedom

Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech given at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009.

My dear young friends, I am pleased to speak to this BYU-Idaho audience. I am conscious that I am also speaking to many in other places. In this time of the Internet, what we say in one place is instantly put before a wider audience, including many to whom we do not intend to speak. That complicates my task, so I ask your understanding as I speak to a very diverse audience.

In choosing my subject I have relied on an old military maxim that when there is a battle underway, persons who desire to join the fray should “march to the sound of the guns.”[i] So it is that I invite you to march with me as I speak about religious freedom under the United States Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to prevail.

I.

An 1833 revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the Lord established the United States Constitution by wise men whom he raised up for that very purpose (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80). The Lord also declared that this constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77; emphasis added).

In 1833, when almost all people in the world were still ruled by kings or tyrants, few could see how the infant United States Constitution could be divinely designed “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” Today, 176 years after that revelation, almost every nation in the world has adopted a written constitution, and the United States Constitution profoundly influenced all of them. Truly, this nation’s most important export is its constitution, whose great principles stand as a model “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” On the vital human right of religious freedom, however, many constitutions fall short of the protections that are needed, so we are grateful that the United States government seeks to encourage religious freedom all over the world.[ii]

II.

To illustrate the importance of basic human rights in other countries, I refer to some recent history in Mongolia, which shows that the religious freedom we have taken for granted in the United States must be won by dangerous sacrifice in some other nations.

Following the perestroika movement in the Soviet Union, popular demonstrations in Mongolia forced the Communist government to resign in March 1990. Other political parties were legalized, but the first Mongolian elections gave the Communists a majority in the new parliament, and the old repressive attitudes persisted in all government departments. The full functioning of a democratic process and the full enjoyment of the people’s needed freedoms do not occur without a struggle. In Mongolia, the freedoms of speech, press and religion — a principal feature of the inspired United States Constitution — remained unfulfilled.

In that precarious environment, a 42-year-old married woman, Oyun Altangerel, a department head in the state library, courageously took some actions that would prove historic. Acting against official pressure, she organized a “Democratic Association Branch Council.” This 12-member group, the first of its kind, spoke out for democracy and proposed that state employees have the freedoms of worship, belief and expression, including the right to belong to a political party of their choice.

When Oyun and others were fired from their state employment, Oyun began a hunger strike in the state library. Within three hours she was joined by 20 others, mostly women, and their hunger strike, which continued for five days, became a public demonstration that took their grievances to the people of Mongolia. This demonstration, backed by major democratic movement leaders, encouraged other government employees to organize similar democratic councils. These dangerous actions expanded into a national anti-government movement that voiced powerful support for the basic human freedoms of speech, press and religion. Eventually the government accepted the demands, and in the adoption of a democratic constitution two years later Mongolia took a major step toward a free society.

For Latter-day Saints, this birth of constitutional freedom in Mongolia has special interest. Less than two years after the historic hunger strike, we sent our first missionaries to Mongolia. In 1992 these couples began their meetings in the state library, where Oyun was working. The following year, she showed her courage again by being baptized into this newly arrived Christian church. Her only child, a 22-year-old son, was baptized two years later. Today, the Mongolian members of our Church number 9,000, reportedly the largest group of Christians in the country. A few months ago we organized our first stake in Mongolia. Called as the stake president was Sister Oyun’s son, Odgerel. He had studied for a year at BYU-Hawaii, and his wife, Ariuna, a former missionary in Utah, graduated there.[iii]

III.

One of the great fundamentals of our inspired constitution, relied on by Oyun of Mongolia and countless others struggling for freedom in many countries in the world, is the principle that the people are the source of government power. This principle of popular sovereignty was first written and applied on the American continent over 200 years ago. A group of colonies won independence from a king, and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a new government. They did this by creating the first written constitution that has survived to govern a modern nation. The United States Constitution declared the source of government power, delegated that power to a government, and regulated its exercise.

Along with many other religious people, we affirm that God is the ultimate source of power and that, under Him, it is the people’s inherent right to decide their form of government. Sovereign power is not inherent in a state or nation just because its leaders have the power that comes from force of arms. And sovereign power does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede, as in Magna Carta. As the preamble to our constitution states: “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

This principle of sovereignty in the people explains the meaning of God’s revelation that He established the Constitution of the United States “that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility — the opposite of slavery or political oppression. With freedom we can be accountable for our own actions and cannot blame our conditions on our bondage to another. This is the condition the Lord praised in the Book of Mormon, where the people — not a king — established the laws and were governed by them (see Mosiah 29:23–26). This popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or tyrant, all citizens are responsible to share the burdens of governing, “that every man might bear his part” (Mosiah 29:34).

IV.

“For the rights and protection of all flesh” the United State Constitution includes in its First Amendment the guarantees of free exercise of religion and free speech and press. Without these great fundamentals of the Constitution, America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the kind still found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the direction that the United States shall have no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

The guarantee of the free exercise of religion, which I will call religious freedom, is the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As noted by many, this “pre-eminent place” identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.”[iv] The American colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, had come to this continent to be able to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights. So it is that our national law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.”[v]

The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances rationalized on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom. Here are just a few examples of current controversial public issues that involve this conflict: laws governing marriage and adoption; laws regulating the activities of church-related organizations like BYU-Idaho in furtherance of their religious missions — activities such as who they will serve or employ; and laws prohibiting discrimination in employment or work conditions against persons with unpopular religious beliefs or practices.

The problems are not simple, and over the years the United States Supreme Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the Constitution, has struggled to identify principles that can guide its decisions when government action is claimed to violate someone’s free exercise of religion. As would be expected, most of the battles over the extent of religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the practices of small groups like Mormons. Not surprisingly, government officials sometimes seem more tolerant toward the religious practices of large groups of voters.

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.

Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.

V.

Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers.

The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

As I address this audience of young adults, I invite your careful attention to what I say on these subjects, because I am describing conditions you will face and challenges you must confront.

Silencing Religious Voices in the Public Square

A writer for The Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,” with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”[vi] Other wise observers have noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by forces who reject the existence or authority of God.[vii] The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.”[x]

Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:

“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .

“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:

“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”[xiii]

Religious Freedom Diluted by Other “Civil Rights”

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers. At the same time, all who conduct such resistance should frame their advocacy and their personal relations so that they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the very real civil rights (such as free speech) of their adversaries or any other disadvantaged group.

VI.

And now, in conclusion, I offer five points of counsel on how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.

First, we must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. We are under command to love our neighbor (Luke 10:27), to forgive all men (Doctrine and Covenants 64:10), to do good to them who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44) and to conduct our teaching in mildness and meekness (Doctrine and Covenants 38:41).

Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled. As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12). And modern revelation commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30).

Second, we must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” [xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Third, we must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith. Why do I make this obvious point? Religious people who share our moral convictions feel some intimidation. Fortunately, our leaders do not refrain from stating and explaining our position that homosexual behavior is sinful. Last summer Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke these words to a BYU audience:

“We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships outside the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity.

“We follow Jesus Christ by adhering to God’s law of marriage, which is marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has been in place from the very beginning.”[xvi]

We will continue to teach what our Heavenly Father has commanded us to teach, and trust that the precious free exercise of religion remains strong enough to guarantee our right to exercise this most basic freedom.

Fourth, as advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. Preachers have been prime movers in the civil rights movement from the earliest advocates of abolition, but even the civil rights of religionists must be exercised legally and wisely.

As Latter-day Saints, we should never be reticent to declare and act upon the sure foundations of our faith. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.[xvii]

Fifth and finally, Latter-day Saints must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement, but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose. But wise religious leaders and members will never advocate religious tests for public office.

Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose. If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.

Conclusion

It was the Christian principles of human worth and dignity that made possible the formation of the United States Constitution over 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that constitution today. Our constitution’s revolutionary concepts of sovereignty in the people and significant guarantees of personal rights were, as John A. Howard has written,

“generated by a people for whom Christianity had been for a century and a half the compelling feature of their lives. It was Jesus who first stated that all men are created equal [and] that every person . . . is valued and loved by God.”[xviii]

Professor Dinesh D’Souza reminds us:

“The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief.”[xix]

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.

My dear brothers and sisters, I testify to the truth of these principles I have expressed today. I testify of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who is the author and finisher of our faith and whose revelations to a prophet of God in these modern times have affirmed the foundation of the United States constitution, which as we have said, was given by God to His children for the rights and protection of all flesh. May God bless us to understand it, to sustain it, and to spread its influence throughout the world, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.



Notes

[i] Robert Debs Heinl Jr., Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1978), 141.

[ii] Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad to the Secretary of State and to the President of the United States, 17 May 1999, 6–7, 30–65. The International Religious Freedom Act, adopted in 1998, 22 USC 6401 et seq., established an office of international religious affairs in the U.S. State Department headed by an Ambassador at Large and the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom. Both of these bodies submit annual reports that assess the status of religious freedom under international standards worldwide and help encourage better implementation of commitments countries around the world have made to respect this fundamental right.

[iii] The information about events in Mongolia was obtained from correspondence with President Odgerel and from Mary N. Cook, former senior missionary and wife of Richard E. Cook, the first mission president in Mongolia.

[iv] Final Report of the Advisory Committee, 6.

[v] 22 USC 6401(a).

[vi] Michael Spencer, “The Coming Evangelical Collapse,” The Christian Science Monitor, 10 Mar. 2009.

[vii] E.g., John A. Howard, “Liberty: America’s Creative Power,” Howard Center, 22 June 2009, 6.

[viii] “In God’s Name: A Special Report on Religion and Public Life,” The Economist, 3 Nov. 2007, 10.

[ix] E.g., The Six Ways of Atheism, which was advertised “to absolutely disprove the existence of God, logically and simply,” was sent free to leading universities and public libraries in all major English-speaking countries in the world. Press release, 26 May 2009.

[x] Howard, “Liberty: America’s Creative Power,” 6.

[xi] Hugh Hewitt, A Mormon in the White House? (Washington DC: Regnery, 2007), 242–43.

[xii] Karl Vick, “Gay Groups Targeting Mormons,” Salt Lake Tribune, 30 May 2009, A8 (Washington Post story).

[xiii] “A New Order of Religious Freedom,” First Things, Feb. 1992, 2; also see Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983).

[xiv] The Yogyakarta Principles, Principle 21 (Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006).

[xv] “No Mob Veto,” New York Times, 5 Dec. 2008.

[xvi] M. Russell Ballard, “Engaging Without Being Defensive,” BYU Commencement Address, 13 August 2009.

[xvii] Among the advocates of this position are Kevin Seamus Hasson, The Right to be Wrong (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005); Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello Jr. and Robin Fretwell Wilson, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Rowman and Littlefield, 2008); and Michael J. Perry, “Liberal Democracy and Religious Morality,” 48 DePaul Law Rev. 1, 20–41 (1998). For examples of this kind of advocacy, see What’s the Harm? ed. Lynn D. Wardle (University Press of America, 2008); and Monte Neil Stewart, “Marriage Facts,” 31 Harv. J. of Law & Pub. Policy 313 (2008).

[xviii] John A. Howard, Christianity: Lifeblood of America’s Free Society (1620–1945) (Monitou Springs, Ohio: Summit Press, 2008), 57.

[xix] “How Christianity Shaped the West,” Hillsdale College, Nov. 2008, Vol. 37, No. 11, p. 5.

(hat tip, Andy Donkin)

President Hinckley Quote

I can just hear President Hinckley's voice when I read this quote...

"When our people first arrived in this valley 155 years ago, they saw with prophetic vision a great future. But I sometimes wonder if they really sensed the magnitude of that dream as it would unfold."The headquarters of the Church are in this city which recently hosted the 19th Winter Olympics. We made a deliberate decision that we would not use this as a time or place to proselytize, but we were confident that out of this significant event would come a wonderful thing for the Church. The great buildings which we have here—the Temple, the Tabernacle, this magnificent Conference Center, the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, Family History facilities, the Church Administration Building, the Church Office Building, our Welfare facilities, together with scores of chapels in this valley—could not be overlooked by those who walked the streets of this and neighboring cities. As Mike Wallace once remarked to me, 'These structures all denote something solid.'"And beyond this, we had total confidence in our people, many thousands of them, who would serve as volunteers in this great undertaking. They would be dependable; they would be pleasant; they would be knowledgeable; they would be accommodating. The unique and distinctive capacity of our people in speaking the languages of the world would prove to be a tremendous asset beyond anything to be found elsewhere. Well, it all worked out."

Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Church Goes Forward," Ensign, May 2002, 4–5

... I miss him.

Leader of Israel Appeals to the Nations of the World for Support

PM Benjamin Netanyahu
Speech to the UN, Sept. 24, 2009

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.

Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?

One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?
Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.

Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially. It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come.

We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?

Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.

Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.

We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis.

We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.

You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded?

Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.

During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.

Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.

A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!

Delegates of the United Nations,
Will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity.

And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why. When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense.

What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.

Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
All of Israel wants peace. Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein.

And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace.

In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it. We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state.

Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city - in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem. We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland.

As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.

The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Great Column--Excellent Insight

Washington and Zarahemla: The Beltway-Nephite Disease
By Gary C. Lawrence

Six years.

In the thousand-year span of the Nephite people, that’s the time on stage for a prideful group known as the king-men.

The last fourth of the book of Alma, in which the king-men story is imbedded, is a sharp break from the doctrine-laden chapters of the first three-fourths of the book, as Mormon turns to stories about war strategy and political happenings.

Why did Mormon include this story of arrogance? Is it a parallel for our time, a warning, something we should learn?

I think so. Because Mormon saw our time, what he decided to include in his abridgement was not happenstance.

Doing a bit of reverse engineering on the actions of king-men based in the government town of Zarahemla, and drawing on other scriptures describing Nephite behavior, here are nine characteristics to watch for, if and when king-men pop up in Washington.

1. They Will Be Subtle

The king-men eventually came out in full rebellion against the Nephite system of judges as established by Mosiah, but before a defeat by the voice of the people unmasked their true colors, they had a disguised plan to scam the system — to use the law of the land to overthrow the government of the land. Note this intriguing sentence in Alma 51:

“[The king-men] were desirous that the law should be altered in a manner to overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land.” [Emphasis added.] 1

Mormon’s choice of verbs and direct objects is instructive. If the king-men had changed the law, Mormon would have said so. Rather, he says they attempted to alter the manner of the law — manner being a method or approach, in this case probably synonymous with implementation. The law itself would remain in place, but how it would be interpreted and implemented would be altered.

These people presented their petition to Pahoran, the chief judge, that “a few particular points of the law should be altered.” 2 (Pretty cheeky: use the right of petition to undermine that and all other rights.) We don’t know what particular points they had in mind. They could have been lower judges, just as those who followed Amalickiah, and maybe they had found a penumbra. Or they might have been appointed officials bent on changing the wording of regulations, not to bring about an immediately detectable consequence, mind you, but to set in motion a series of small hinge-point changes that would eventually cause a major governmental change. In such positions, mischief is limited only by imagination.

Whatever the nub of the issue, we can be sure they postured their petition as no big deal — just a few minor corrections.

No subtle plans to see here, folks; move along, move along.

2. They Will Exploit the Desire for Power

Malickiah achieved power by promising power. This Nephite apostate and would-be king over both Lamanites and Nephites recruited followers with the promise that:

“If they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people.” 3

No dictator can survive alone. He gathers, maintains, and projects power through a coterie of followers who are promised authority and power over the people and a share in the extracted goodies.

Once in power, such wannabes are tempted by the misuse of power as bluntly described in D&C 121:

“It is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” 4

Power is a reward to those who have a need to feel superior. In a world of nearly seven billion people, it’s difficult for some to believe they are truly unique, and that God knows and loves each one of them. Far better, so they reason, to affirm their specialness by gaining power.

Toward the end of Willie Sutton’s infamous career, someone asked him why he robbed banks. His “duh” answer: “Because that’s where the money is.” Same with Washington — if you know the way, it’s a power magnet …

Put a hundred down and buy a car
In a week, maybe two, they’ll make you a czar

If you don’t make fame in L.A., you park cars and pump gas. If you can’t wangle a Schedule C appointment in Washington, you bide time in a bureaucratic slot or think-tank cubicle until fortune smiles and you grab that golden ring of high authority and low accountability — czardom.

Our current president has appointed more than 30 czars — drug czar, health reform czar, TARP czar, salary czar, car czar, even a Guantanomo-closing czar — unelected special aides with considerable authority over public policy, and virtually no check-and-balance mechanisms such as senate confirmation. More government intrusion means more opportunities for the unelected to wield power — and abuse it.

Count the many staffers, name them one by one.

3. They Will Consider Themselves the New Nobility

King Mosiah established the reign of judges and gave this guiding principle:

“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law – to do your business by the voice of the people.” 5
The king-men of Zarahemla rejected this counsel and felt entitled to govern because of who their daddies were:

“Now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.” 6

Those with nobility impulses today make less of a case for bloodlines (though some clamor for a royal American family — guess who?) and more of a case for intellectual nobility. They maintain that the smarter ones among us should rule (the philosopher king idea), and consulting the voice of the people is too laborious for solving urgent crises.

Hence the battle of the mind of God versus that of man. When God is acknowledged as the highest power in the universe, the selfish ambitions of men are somewhat constrained. But if the mind of man is deemed the highest power, then mental megahertz, cunning, and the management of the creature determine the winners. Which is why king-men, yesterday or today, will avoid discussing God’s mind and focus only on their own. They want a robust pecking order based on intellectual prowess.

The case for intellectual nobility goes up as belief in God goes down.

4. They Will Look Down on Others

My father-in-law, a county attorney and rancher, told what happened when an expert from the Department of Agriculture in Washington visited southern Idaho determined to help farmers and ranchers improve their lot in life. Commenting on lamb production, this expert told the poor benighted folks, “Your problem is that all the lambs are born in March. You have to get the ewes [he pronounced it EE-wees] to produce lambs uniformly throughout the year.” He was hooted out of the room.

Why did this man think that his college degree, his place of residence, and his title in a government agency gave him superior knowledge to people laboring daily in the trenches? If there’s a major symptom of the Beltway-Nephite disease, it’s the arrogant belief that people can’t run their own lives and must be told by enlightened ones what to do.

This plague of pride — “we are powerful, and our cities great” 7 — is the warp and woof of Nephite history, and shortly before the appearance of the Savior on the American continent, nobility by intellect added to the pretensions of nobility by blood:

“And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.” 8

Puffed up with pride, those who feel superior soon enough ask, “What’s the use of being a noble if no one cares or notices?” To be sure they do, hello ridicule.

In America today, outright persecution of the poor is rare, but put-downs are not. Elites on both coasts (especially the Beltway and Manhattan) make fun of “fly-over country” and cannot imagine anything of worth coming from the sticks. Comedians call us stupid and congressional leaders say we’re unpatriotic. As a pollster, I am confident that a solid majority of Americans would tell Mr. Maher and Ms. Pelosi that their arrows are half a compass off target.

And talk about geocentric chauvinism. I once conducted focus groups in New York discussing medical clinics and when Mayo Clinic was brought up, one man said, “If they’re so good, why aren’t they in New York?” Similarly, a woman in Washington was reported puzzling over the results of the 1980 election: “I can’t understand how Ronald Reagan was elected; I don’t know one person who voted for him.”

A self-anointed nobility has difficulty understanding those they deem lower on the rungs of society. Some in Washington have become so blind to common sense that they actually thought they could ask American citizens to snitch on friends and families who pass along “fishy” observations about the president’s healthcare agenda.

Fly-over country, indeed.

5. They Will Flatter

Tell someone he is better than someone else and he will likely believe it.

Almost every villain in the Book of Mormon shared two traits: fluency of language and flattery of the people. To name a few:

* Sherem was “learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery” 9

* Korihor demonstrated his power of language in an argument with Alma, who said it is better that Korihor be lost than souls be brought down to destruction “by thy lying and by thy flattering words” 10

* Amalickiah, the villain of choice in king-men days, was “a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words” 11

* Even Alma the Younger, in his pre-angel-appearance days, “was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people” 12

The essence of flattery is telling someone he or she is better than others, which pride-driven disease plagued the Nephites even before the first scrape of their boat on America’s shores. Flattery requires and builds on class distinctions — a shared sense of us versus them, the “them” being anyone the speaker chooses to demonize, especially those who have supposedly failed them in the past.

Flatterers in the Book of Mormon enlisted others in their fight against church and/or government by telling their listeners that they deserved better. They gave them a sense of purpose, of being important, of participating in a great event — a sense of Kumbaya togetherness and belonging to something bigger than themselves.

But trust them to make their own decisions? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Have things changed? If dissenting Nephites had bumper stickers for their chariots, they could not have done better than…

We are the change we have been waiting for.

6. They Will Deceive

Flatterers and king-men will …

* Rarely speak specifics or directly state their intentions,

* Use vague and nebulous terms that encourage the audience to hear what they want to hear while reserving private definitions that allow for different explanations later,

* Disarm the opposition by appearing to side with them when they really harbor opposite intentions, and

* Speak in frothy, feel-good, cotton-candy platitudes.

The king-men pretended to want to correct only a few details, but knew their plan would overthrow the free government. Amalickiah pledged fealty to Lehonti, the Lamanite king, while secretly having him poisoned. 13 And 50 years later, corrupt judges accused Nephi, great-grandson of Alma, of being un-Nephite, claiming he reviled against the people and the law, while they themselves belonged to Gadianton’s secret band dedicated to usurping the power of government. 14

The sad story is played out repeatedly. The prideful seeking power know they can never show their true agenda because, as Mosiah said, the greater part of the people will choose the right if given a clear choice. Therefore, they cannot and do not trust the people.

As a measure of our culture today, can you think of an adjective that more frequently modifies the word agenda than the word hidden?

7. They Will Strike When Crises Provide Opportunities

The king-men made their move when Amalickiah was running roughshod over the countryside and Captain Moroni and Helaman were out of town:

“For behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of Nephi; for behold, Amalickiah had again stirred up the hearts of the people of the Lamanites against the people of the Nephites.” 15

Power expands and freedoms are lost when people face critical threats and are vulnerable to persuasion that their government be granted new powers.

If a situation is or can be manufactured into a crisis, people will allow suspension of some democratic processes (witness especially World War I and the Great Depression). Checks and balances give way to calls for a strong man to make decisions for the common good, however that superior being chooses to define it. Simplification looks enticing.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

8. They Will Not Trust People’s Freedoms

The Spirit of God is also the spirit of freedom. 16

Power in the secular world is the right to tell people what to do and the policing authority to make them do it. Freedom is the natural enemy to that power. The two vary inversely.

The king-men came out in open rebellion against a free government for at least two reasons:

* They could not very well consider themselves noble and better than others if they were obliged to live under the voice of the people; and

* They wanted power and control, but the more people enjoyed freedom, the less the opportunity to obtain power over them.

The battle for freedom then and now boils down to one question: who gets to decide what? Who has agency — the person for himself, or the government for him?

When people, elected and unelected, show up on the Washington scene, we get dutiful lip service to the cause of freedom, but watch their actions. Do they protect the rights of citizens to make their own decisions, or do they work for bigger government, more intrusion into individual lives, and fewer decisions left to the average citizen?

If the latter, then they’re king-men — thirsty for power with little heed for the agency of man and lulling people into surrendering a few choices here, a few there, in the “interest of the common good.”

Elites do not champion liberties; they protect privileges.

9. They Will Oppose Efforts to Defend the Country

“And it came to pass that when the men who were called king-men had heard that the Lamanites were coming down to battle against them, they were glad in their hearts; and they refused to take up arms, for they were so wroth with the chief judge, and also with the people of liberty, that they would not take up arms to defend their country.” 17

Whether king-men personally pick up a weapon isn’t as important as the attitudes that drive them. The king-men of yore actively hoped for the defeat of the Nephite nation (probably thinking it would provide opportunities for power under the new rulers) and did not lift a finger to help until they were compelled to do so.

Can we spot king-men today by their attitudes? Apply these questions to those in power:

* Are they proud or ashamed of their nation?

* Are they anxious to share American values?

* Do they favor or oppose a robust military?

* Do they support or oppose defense innovations, such as missile defense?

* Do they demonize domestic opponents but apologize to foreign enemies?

* Do they allow interrogators to extract intelligence from sworn enemies to save American lives, or do they prosecute them for their efforts?

* Do they respect debate or do they attempt to intimidate and silence critics?

A would-be dictator stirs people to anger, but upon achieving power wants silent obedience.

Smell familiar?

* * *

The king-men did tremendous damage to the Nephite nation in six short years. Pride, subtlety, flattery, deceit, nobility, condescension, power ambition, geocentric chauvinism, opportunism, distrust of the voice of the people and disdain for freedom from government intrusions — the only element of king-men-ism absent from Washington today is an outright refusal to take up arms to defend the country. But there are many in power who are hobbling those who try.

If the events of 2009 and the attitudes of those currently in power are not those Mormon saw in our day, such that he included the king-men story in the Book of Mormon, what further parallels must occur before we learn the intended lesson?

Are we so complacent to think that the king-men parallel lies yet in the future, a problem for some other generation? Are we willing to take a chance that 2009 could not possibly be the king-men day that Mormon saw?

Look around, America. The answer is clear — very clear.

* * *

Unlike king-men, Gary Lawrence welcomes opposing as well as supporting comments at gary@lawrenceresearch.com.

Notes
1 Alma 51:5

2 Alma 51:2

3 Alma 46:5

4 D&C 121:39

5 Mosiah 29:26

6 Alma 51:8

7 Helaman 8:6

8 3 Nephi 6:12

9 Jacob 7:4

10 Alma 30:47

11 Alma 46:10

12 Mosiah 27:8

13 Alma 47:18

14 Helaman 8:1-5

15 Alma 51:9

16 Alma 61:15

17 Alma 51:13

An Enemy Hath Done This, pt.2

I wish I could post the entire text of this book here. Every sentence, every paragraph is profound. But here is a particularly poignant section--chilling in it's application to our current situation.

"As a nation we are strong. With the freedom of economic enterprise that we possess, we are able to produce as much industrial goods as all the world combined -- even though we are only seven percent of the world's people and possess only six percent of the world's land.

(Written is 1969, we are now the inheritors of the immense decline of which President Benson repeatedly forewarned. It seems we are the present witnesses of the fruition of his darkest worries.)

These abundant blessings have come to us through an economic system which rests largely on three pillars:

1. Free enterprise...the right to venture...the right to choose.
2. Private property...the right to own.
3. A market economy...the right to exchange.

Working together, we can maintain the strength of these pillars.

There are some in the U.S., nevertheless, who decry free enterprise, who would place business, agriculture, and labor in a government strait jacket.

Our economic order is not perfect, because it is operated by imperfect human beings, but it has given us more of the good things of life than any other system. The fundamental reason is that our economy is free. It must remain free. In that freedom ultimately lies our basic economic strength.

Let us admit the weaknesses that exist. Let us work aggressively to correct them. But never let us make the catastrophic blunder of putting chains on our basic economic freedom.

Yes, our phenomenal material advances have been the fruit of our freedom--our free enterprise capitalistic system, our American way of life, our God-given freedom of choice.

The progress of the future must stem from this same basic freedom.

Yet, these basic American beliefs, principles, and attributes are threatened today as never before.

By whom are they threatened? These basic concepts are threatened by three groups:
1. They are threatened by well-meaning but uninformed people who see the shortcomings of our economic system and believe they can legislate them out of existence. They try to reach the promised land by passing laws. They do not understand our economic system and its limitations. They would load it down with burdens it was never intended to carry. As their schemes begin to break down, more and more controls must be supplied. Patch is placed upon patch, regulation is added to regulation and ultimately, by degree, freedom is lost--without our desiring to lose it and without our knowing why or how it was lost.

2. Our heritage of freedom is threatened by another group--self-seeking men who see in government legislation a way to obtain special privileges for themselves or to restrain their competitors. They use demagoguery as a smokescreen to deceive. These people have no love for freedom or enterprise. They would bargain away their birthright for a mess of pottage. They would learn the value of freedom only after is was gone.

3. A third, still much smaller group is dedicated to the overthrow of the economic and social system that is our tradition. Their philosophy does not stem from Jefferson, but is foreign to our shores. It is a total philosophy of life, atheistic, and utterly opposed to all that we hold dear as a great Christian nation. These men understand our system thoroughly--and hate it thoroughly. They enlist innocent but willing followers from the uninformed and the unprincipled. Through rabble-rousing and demagoguery they play upon the economic reverses and hardships of the unsuspecting. They promise the impossible, and call black white, and mislead with fallacies masqueraded as truth.

If we lose our freedom, it will be to this strange and unlike coalition of the well-intentioned, the slothful, and the subversives.

It will be because we did not care enough--because we were not alert enough--because we were too apathetic to take note while the precious waters of our God-given freedom slipped -- drop by drop -- down the drain.

Heaven forbid that this should come to pass!"
Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, pg.24-26

I remember as a youth, President Benson speaking repeatedly to our generation, insisting that we were saved for these last days. I wonder if he foresaw that we would be the generation that restores the Constitution in the days that it would "hang by a thread". Heaven help us to have the courage and strength.

An Enemy Hath Done This

I am currently reading a book by Ezra Taft Benson, published in 1969, called "An Enemy Hath Done This". This book is as profound as it is cutting in it's condemnation of Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and other atheistic government "isms". My highlighter is running out of ink in the second chapter.

I'm sure I'll be bringing you quotes from it on a regular basis. I'd love to hear from anyone else who'd like to follow along and read it as well.

One of our most serious problems is the inferiority complex which people feel when they are not informed and organized. They dare not make a decision on these vital issues. They let other people think for them. They stumble around in the middle of the road to avoid being 'controversial' and get hit by the traffic going both ways.

To the patriots I say this: Take that long eternal look. Stand up for freedom, no matter what the cost.

It can help to save your soul--and maybe your country...

May God give us the wisdom to recognize the dangers of complacency, the threat to our freedom and the strength to meet this danger courageously...

In this mighty struggle each of you has a part. Every person on the earth today chose the right side during the war in heaven. Be on the right side now. Stand up and be counted. If you get discouraged remember the words of Edward Everett Hale, when he said:

I am only one, but still I am one.
I cannot do everything, but still I can do something;
And because I cannot do everything
I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
(Familiar Quotations, p. 550)